To: Libloather
Sorry, but I think the painting is horrible, though it’s better than his other works.
2 posted on
01/26/2010 6:07:59 PM PST by
alice_in_bubbaland
(Markets and Marxists Don't Mix! Audit the FED NOW!)
To: Libloather
Too bad, it was from his figurative period.
What makes him think collectors wouldn’t want to buy
it.....at a discount.
3 posted on
01/26/2010 6:08:16 PM PST by
tet68
( " We would not die in that man's company, that fears his fellowship to die with us...." Henry V.)
To: Libloather
That is only worth 65 Million ?
4 posted on
01/26/2010 6:09:08 PM PST by
reefdiver
("Let His day's be few And another takes His office")
To: Libloather
I don’t see why, since the amount of Picasso works are limited and finite. If you love an artist, well, what’s a canvas repair? Still his work. If it were a Van Gogh I’d take it at full price if I could afford full price, (gee it would’ve been nice to buy it from Vinny, for ten bucks...)
Is she responsible?
5 posted on
01/26/2010 6:09:17 PM PST by
Beowulf9
To: Libloather
Take a close look at that painting.
OBAMA as Court Jester!
6 posted on
01/26/2010 6:09:31 PM PST by
grey_whiskers
(The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
To: Libloather
7 posted on
01/26/2010 6:11:11 PM PST by
Doogle
(USAF.68-73..8th TFW Ubon Thailand..never store a threat you should have eliminated)
To: Libloather
What are the tax write-off or insurance benefits from this little “accident”?
And for whom?
8 posted on
01/26/2010 6:12:47 PM PST by
Talisker
(When you find a turtle on top of a fence post, you can be damn sure it didn't get there on it's own.)
To: Libloather
BTW, to paraphrase Mark Twain, Picasso's painting is much better than it looks!
Cheers!
10 posted on
01/26/2010 6:13:27 PM PST by
grey_whiskers
(The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
To: Libloather
avid collectors -- van Weyenberg cited Steven Spielberg as one -- won't be interested in the tainted work TREMENDOUS irony there, stating that Steven Spielberg won't be interested in owning a tainted artwork.
11 posted on
01/26/2010 6:13:34 PM PST by
ClearCase_guy
(We have the 1st so that we can call on people to rebel. We have 2nd so that they can.)
To: Libloather
I hope she noticed the little sign:
YOU BREAK IT
YOU BUY IT
13 posted on
01/26/2010 6:14:04 PM PST by
MARTIAL MONK
(I'm waiting for the POP!)
To: Libloather
To: Libloather
I would have thought they would have taken better care of it. I’m surprised a $65 million work of art is displayed in such a way that anyone can get to the surface of it.
To: Libloather
I don't see any hole in it.
All seriousness aside, why the hell would they display a fragile $65 million piece in the open, and not protected by a transparent shield?
If she was a serious bidder, she should buy the painting. If not, she shouldn't have gotten anywhere near it.
16 posted on
01/26/2010 6:22:04 PM PST by
ROCKLOBSTER
(Deathcare...a solution desperately looking for a problem.)
To: Libloather
"Hey, shit happens, come on!"
17 posted on
01/26/2010 6:24:30 PM PST by
jiggyboy
(Ten per cent of poll respondents are either lying or insane)
To: Libloather
Why wasn’t a $130 million piece of art protected behind glass or something?
To: SevenofNine
To: Libloather
24 posted on
01/26/2010 7:42:21 PM PST by
Slyfox
To: Libloather
I don’t even want to know what the “collectors” think this expression means.
25 posted on
01/26/2010 7:56:32 PM PST by
eyedigress
( now.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
